2000 (3) TMI 1090 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the M.P. Town and Country Development Act, 1973, read with Rule 18 of the M.P. Town and Country Development Rules, 1975.
2. Validity of deemed permission under Section 30(5) of the Act.
3. Validity of the draft development scheme published under Section 50(3) of the Act.
4. Requirement of simultaneous publication in the Gazette and local newspaper under Rule 18(2).
5. Validity of the rejection of no objection certificate (NOC) applications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the Act:
The appellant contended that the draft development scheme was published within the stipulated two years from the declaration of intention to prepare the scheme, as per sub-section (2) of Section 50. The court clarified that the period of two years should be computed from the later publication date, which was 6.9.1985, making the draft scheme published on 4.9.1987 valid.

2. Validity of deemed permission under Section 30(5) of the Act:
The respondent claimed deemed permission for development under Section 30(5) due to the Director's failure to communicate a decision within 60 days. However, the court noted that the appellant had sent multiple communications seeking additional information, thus extending the 60-day period. The court concluded that the respondent's application was closed due to non-compliance with the information requests, negating the deemed permission claim.

3. Validity of the draft development scheme published under Section 50(3) of the Act:
The respondent argued that the draft scheme was invalid as it was not published within two years from the declaration of intention. The court held that the two-year period should be computed from the later publication date of 6.9.1985, making the draft scheme published on 4.9.1987 valid. The court emphasized that any subsequent publication of intention does not invalidate the draft scheme if it adheres to the prescribed timeline.

4. Requirement of simultaneous publication in the Gazette and local newspaper under Rule 18(2):
The respondent contended that the draft scheme was invalid as the publication in the local newspaper occurred more than two months after the Gazette publication. The court clarified that the primary requirement for computing the two-year period is the publication in the Gazette. The additional publication in the local newspaper is intended to give due publicity and does not affect the validity of the draft scheme. The court rejected the need for simultaneous publication in both mediums.

5. Validity of the rejection of no objection certificate (NOC) applications:
The respondent's applications for NOC were rejected by the authorities due to the existence of a draft development scheme. The court upheld the rejection, stating that any development application under Section 29 must conform to the published development scheme. The court found no illegality in the rejection orders and noted that the respondent did not pursue available remedies such as appeal or revision under Sections 31 and 32 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment that quashed the draft scheme and allowed the respondent's application. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions and timelines for the validity of development schemes and permissions.